Anything into oil?
Kenneth O'Brien
http://discover.com/current_issue/index.html
---
Kenneth O'Brien
"All aboard the John Navarre Greatness Express!!"
Matthew Hennig
@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com:
> Anybody hear about this thermal depolymerization process?
>
> http://discover.com/current_issue/index.html
WIT,RSFCC? ($1)
MH
--
"We just got outplayed today. That's the bottom line. And we got
outcoached."
- OU Head Coach Bob Stoops following the Texas A&M game
Kenneth O'Brien
<ma...@aggies.No_JuNk.org> wrote:
>>uofm...@aol.com (Kenneth O'Brien) wrote in news:3eadf451.86088248
>>@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com:
>>
>>> Anybody hear about this thermal depolymerization process?
>>>
>>> http://discover.com/current_issue/index.html
>>
>>WIT,RSFCC? ($1)
Dammit where? In a MIEK thread?
Matthew Hennig
@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 23:15:46 -0500, Matthew Hennig
><ma...@aggies.No_JuNk.org> wrote:
>
>>>uofm...@aol.com (Kenneth O'Brien) wrote in news:3eadf451.86088248
>>>@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com:
>>>
>>>> Anybody hear about this thermal depolymerization process?
>>>>
>>>> http://discover.com/current_issue/index.html
>>>
>>>WIT,RSFCC? ($1)
>
> Dammit where? In a MIEK thread?
Well, yeah.
Jefferson N Glapski
news:3eadf451...@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com...
> Anybody hear about this thermal depolymerization process?
>
> http://discover.com/current_issue/index.html
Why can't we create diamonds out of coal?
They have created gold out of lead, at the cost of $2 billion an ounce.
--
Jefferson N. Glapski
http://www.bermudaflagfootball.com
They put on college football's most distinctive uniforms, thinking about
those before them. The walk-ons, the All-Americans, the Legends who made
sure to uphold the tradition... They are the black shoes, white helmets and
plain uniforms of one of America's most successful programs. They are
heroes, they are winners....they are Penn State football.
Tom O'Brien
>
> "Kenneth O'Brien" <uofm...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:3eadf451...@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com...
> > Anybody hear about this thermal depolymerization process?
> >
> > http://discover.com/current_issue/index.html
>
> Why can't we create diamonds out of coal?
TO
jbird
Jefferson N Glapski wrote:
>
> "Kenneth O'Brien" <uofm...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:3eadf451...@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com...
> > Anybody hear about this thermal depolymerization process?
> >
> > http://discover.com/current_issue/index.html
>
> Why can't we create diamonds out of coal?
>
60 minutes did a show on fake diamonds once. They took real and fake
diamonds to pretigous jewelers in NYC and asked them to say what was
real or fake. They couldn't do it by just looking at it.
PP PP
PP PP PP tt tt
PP PP PP tt tt
PP PP tttttt ttttttt
PP PP ii ttt ttt
PP ii ii it tt tt tt tt
PP iii iii ttt tt
Jefferson N Glapski
>
>
> Jefferson N Glapski wrote:
> >
> > "Kenneth O'Brien" <uofm...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:3eadf451...@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com...
> > > Anybody hear about this thermal depolymerization process?
> > >
> > > http://discover.com/current_issue/index.html
> >
> > Why can't we create diamonds out of coal?
>
> 60 minutes did a show on fake diamonds once. They took real and fake
> diamonds to pretigous jewelers in NYC and asked them to say what was
> real or fake. They couldn't do it by just looking at it.
Digging thru shale or bedrock with a diamond studded drill would tell what
is real though.
Bill Deems
>diamonds to pretigous jewelers in NYC and asked them to say what was
>real or fake. They couldn't do it by just looking at it.
Well, if you can tell the difference by just looking, why do we need exprets?
jbird
Prestigious jewlers in NYC ARE exprets dumnass.
Not many people are going to grab Mrs. Suburbanfuck's diamond off her
finger and run tests on it. They'll probably just SEE it and LOOK at
it.
Aaron Ginn
> Jefferson N Glapski wrote:
> >
> > "Kenneth O'Brien" <uofm...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:3eadf451...@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com...
> > > Anybody hear about this thermal depolymerization process?
> > >
> > > http://discover.com/current_issue/index.html
> >
> > Why can't we create diamonds out of coal?
> >
>
> 60 minutes did a show on fake diamonds once. They took real and fake
> diamonds to pretigous jewelers in NYC and asked them to say what was
> real or fake. They couldn't do it by just looking at it.
One of the ways of distinguishing natural from synthetic diamonds was
to expose them to UV light. I believe synthetic diamonds glow
slightly while natural do not (or maybe it's the other way around).
Recently, the manufacturers of synthetic diamonds have begun to
overcome this difference. Now, there's no way to tell them apart.
As a result, De Beers has started engraving their diamonds with a
small emblem so that you can be sure you're getting a "real" diamond.
With all due respect to Microsoft, nobody has orchestrated a better,
sustained marketing campaign than De Beers:
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/82feb/8202diamond1.htm
--
Aaron J. Ginn Phone : 480-814-4463
Motorola SemiCustom Solutions Pager : 877-586-2318
1300 N. Alma School Rd. Fax : 480-814-4058
Chandler, AZ 85224 M/D CH260 mailto:aaron...@motorola.com
Jeffrey Davis
> Anybody hear about this thermal depolymerization process?
>
> http://discover.com/current_issue/index.html
>
If this isn't a fraud or a gag, it's as happy a bit of news as I've
heard in donkey's years. Even if the process never advances beyond
it's current (stated) levels of expense and profitability, a world
where petroleum products are 50% more costly is a far different world
than one where petroleum products are 200% more costly.
I like the fact that it's adaptable to existing, hard-to-use resources
like tar-sands. Hell, if it can convert tar-sands as advertised, we
can put a [CLOSED] sign on energy problems and go on from there.
Like I said, if this isn't a gag or a fraud or pie-in-the-sky like
room temp fission, it's as happy a bit of news as I've heard in a long
time.
Jon Fulbright
> >
> > "Kenneth O'Brien" <uofm...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:3eadf451...@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com...
> > > Anybody hear about this thermal depolymerization process?
> > >
> > > http://discover.com/current_issue/index.html
> >
> > Why can't we create diamonds out of coal?
> >
>
>
> 60 minutes did a show on fake diamonds once. They took real and fake
> diamonds to pretigous jewelers in NYC and asked them to say what was
> real or fake. They couldn't do it by just looking at it.
Morrisite (sp?--names for Morrisville, NC, near RTP where they were
first made). Unfortunately they now have tests to tell the difference,
even on mounted rings. So no more sneaking one into an engagement ring.
jf
jbird
Aaron Ginn wrote:
>
"real" diamond.
>
> With all due respect to Microsoft, nobody has orchestrated a better,
> sustained marketing campaign than De Beers:
>
> http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/82feb/8202diamond1.htm
>
they created the demand of a product that really isn't that rare.
Jefferson N Glapski
news:hgbtav4ar0ikage4v...@4ax.com...
> "Jefferson N Glapski" <jngW...@PENNSTATElogic.bm> wrote:
>
> >Digging thru shale or bedrock with a diamond studded drill would tell
what
> >is real though.
>
>
> And all the diamonds on the end of a drill bit are industrial (i.e.
> artificial) diamonds.
>
> All of this semantic nonsense is simply an attempt by a huge industry
> to protect its profits by lying to you. They want you to continue to
> think there's some difference between a lump of pure, clear,
> crystalline carbon that comes out of the ground, and the exact same
> thing that comes out of a laboratory. That's because deBeers sells
> mystique. "A Diamond is Forever" "Show her you'd marry her all over
> again" and all those other slogans are just hype to get you to part
> with your cash for something that's essentially worthless.
I thought he was talking cubic zirconia.
--
Jefferson N. Glapski
http://www.pair.com/jglapski/fatfuck
Kenneth O'Brien
wrote:
>>Oh, they can render down turkey ofal just fine. But all that BS about
>>PVC plastics, Tires, computers & refrigerators: Just BS.
Why?
Tom O'Brien
>
> res0...@alltel.net (Jeffrey Davis) wrote:
>
> >Like I said, if this isn't a gag or a fraud or pie-in-the-sky like
> >room temp fission, it's as happy a bit of news as I've heard in a long
> >time.
>
>
> Oh, they can render down turkey ofal just fine. But all that BS about
> PVC plastics, Tires, computers & refrigerators: Just BS.
Other than they already did it. Besides, most of that shit starts out
as oil in the first place, so why would it be so freakin hard to get it
back out?
TO
(Maybe it's got barbs on the end of it like this damn hook in my
mouth...)
Nathan Thurm
oil into turkey offal - that's news
"Tom O'Brien" <mrto...@ameritech.networth> wrote in message
news:3EAF4046...@ameritech.networth...
Kenneth O'Brien
wrote:
>>Tom O'Brien <mrto...@ameritech.networth> wrote:
>>
>>>Lone Victor wrote:
>>>> It's pie-in-the-sky.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, they can render down turkey ofal just fine. But all that BS about
>>>> PVC plastics, Tires, computers & refrigerators: Just BS.
>>>
>>>Other than they already did it.
>>
>>No they haven't.
"Experimentation revealed that different waste streams require
different cooking and coking times and yield different finished
products. "It's a two-step process, and you do more in step one or
step two depending on what you are processing," Terry Adams says.
"With the turkey guts, you do the lion's share in the first stage.
With mixed plastics, most of the breakdown happens in the second
stage." The oil-to-mineral ratios vary too. Plastic bottles, for
example, yield copious amounts of oil, while tires yield more minerals
and other solids. So far, says Adams, "nothing hazardous comes out
from any feedstock we try."
So they are lying?
Kenneth O'Brien
wrote:
>>uofm...@aol.com (Kenneth O'Brien) wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 22:04:33 -0400, lo...@victor.com (Lone Victor)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Oh, they can render down turkey ofal just fine. But all that BS about
>>>>>PVC plastics, Tires, computers & refrigerators: Just BS.
>>>
>>>Why?
>>>
>>Several reasons. For example, chemistry is just not that clean.
>>Different compounds react at different rates. So when they load up
>>the hopper with shredded tires & computers & junk, they are *not*
>>going to get out a nice clean product. They're going to get out goop.
>>And the undesirable elements (heavy metals, chlorine, etc.) are going
>>to be in every part of that goop -- not just in the solids they claim
>>are left behind.
Explain to me why, with chemistry, the metals and chlorine cannot be
extracted from the goop.
>>
>>Second, it takes a *lot* of energy and effort to shred even something
>>as simple as a tire. Modern tires have dozens of different materials
>>-- steel belts, nylon cords, rubber, carbon black, etc. They are
>>*tough*. They do not want to shred into pea-sized chunks. And if you
>>don't shred them, then only the outer layers react, and you have big
>>problems.
I don't quite understand this either. First, why would only the outer
layers react, it wouldn't be possible to dissolve/melt/ all of it?
Second, what would the big problems be if only the outer layers did
react?
>>
>>Third, they claim they remove most of the water from the first
>>reaction by flash evaporation. This means you take a hot, pressurized
>>liquid and release it into the air. Can you say "pollution"? I knew
>>you could. So they'll have to capture everything that evaporates, and
>>treat what they can't reuse. That means cooling towers and lots of
>>fresh water.
This might be true, but there are many industries that currently use
cooling towers and lots of fresh water.
>>
>>Third, their solid residues will be hopelessly contaminated if they
>>mix materials like they implied in the article. If you shred a
>>computer, you'll end up with a lot of epoxy resin, PVC plastics, iron,
>>aluminum, tin, lead, some gold, etc. Even if they can recover the
>>carbon-based products from this mess, they'll end up with a load of
>>toxic waste.
According to http://changingworldtech.com (the company behind the tech
explained)
The TDP reforms even heavy metals into oxides that are safe and
non-leachable and pass TCLP (leaching) standards.
>>
>>Now, most of the above does not apply to rendering turkey offal. I
>>expect they'll succeed with that -- and more power to them. They'll
>>be taking an organic byproduct (mostly protein and fat), and
>>converting it from garbage to fuel. (It remains to be seen how much
>>*net* fuel.) Great recycling story.
>>
>>But the crap about tar sands, oil shale & tires? Pure BS.
Well it is your word against theirs. I'll opt for optimism and hope
it will actually be feasible in the near future.
>>BTW: you might want to look into the history of a company named
>>SolvEx. Claimed they could do the same thing to tar sands some
>>five-six years ago.
Technology cannot improve?
Jeffrey Davis
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 22:04:33 -0400, lo...@victor.com (Lone Victor)
> wrote:
>
> >>Oh, they can render down turkey ofal just fine. But all that BS about
> >>PVC plastics, Tires, computers & refrigerators: Just BS.
>
> Why?
I admit, the process, as described, sounds a lot like the fraudulent
chess machines of the 19th century. In this case, instead of a person
being "in there", they put oil in there. And bits of other chemicals.
But the process does work on turkey bones and offal since there is
that ConAgra plant is up and running. It isn't as dramatic as grinding
up tires, refrigerators, milk cartons, and computers; but getting rid
of animal offal isn't something to sneeze at. Have you ever been with
a couple of miles of a swine poo lagoon?
Doug Sorensen
>
>Tom O'Brien <mrto...@ameritech.networth> wrote:
>
>>Lone Victor wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh, they can render down turkey ofal just fine. But all that BS about
>>> PVC plastics, Tires, computers & refrigerators: Just BS.
>>
>>Other than they already did it.
>
"The technicians here have spent three years feeding different kinds of waste
into their machinery to formulate recipes. In a little trailer next to the
plant, Appel picks up a handful of one-gallon plastic bags sent by a potential
customer in Japan. The first is full of ground-up appliances, each piece no
larger than a pea. "Put a computer and a refrigerator into a grinder, and that's
what you get," he says, shaking the bag. "It's PVC, wood, fiberglass, metal,
just a mess of different things. This process handles mixed waste beautifully."
>
>>Besides, most of that shit starts out
>>as oil in the first place, so why would it be so freakin hard to get it
>>back out?
>
>In a word: Entropy.
>
An inapplicable word, but a word none the less. What part of heating to
500/900°F donut you understand?
Doug
SSD
I thought it was Moissanite.
jbird
aka alanisite
jbird
Lone Victor wrote:
>
> res0...@alltel.net (Jeffrey Davis) wrote:
>
> >Like I said, if this isn't a gag or a fraud or pie-in-the-sky like
> >room temp fission, it's as happy a bit of news as I've heard in a long
> >time.
>
> It's pie-in-the-sky.
>
but, I have fingers in many pies.
Daniel Seriff
(in message <35qvav41ln5cig387...@4ax.com>):
> uofm...@aol.com (Kenneth O'Brien) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 01:57:27 -0400, lo...@victor.com (Lone Victor)
>> wrote:
>>>>> Other than they already did it.
>>>>
>>>> No they haven't.
>>
>> So they are lying?
>>
> Yes. In my estimation this is a scam.
You're welcome to prove it with something more than not even remotely
substantiated one-line assertions. I'll take published science over newsgroup
bluster any day.
--
Daniel Seriff
Natural Gas . . . it gives you some ideas!
Daniel Seriff
(in message <vapuav0b9qrkos4bk...@4ax.com>):
>> Besides, most of that shit starts out
>> as oil in the first place, so why would it be so freakin hard to get it
>> back out?
>
> In a word: Entropy.
Which equations are you using to prove that entropy would prevent it?
--
Daniel Seriff
Would you eat a rectal thermometer? ANSWER ME, DAMN YOU!!!
Doug Sorensen
says...
Well, at least the patents are real:
5,269,947
5,360,553
5,543,061
Doug
Doug Sorensen
>
>Doug Sorensen <doug.NOSP...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <vapuav0b9qrkos4bk...@4ax.com>, lo...@victor.com says...
>>
>>"The technicians here have spent three years feeding different kinds of waste
>>into their machinery to formulate recipes. In a little trailer next to the
>>plant, Appel picks up a handful of one-gallon plastic bags sent by a potential
>>customer in Japan. The first is full of ground-up appliances, each piece no
>>larger than a pea. "Put a computer and a refrigerator into a grinder, and that's
>>what you get," he says, shaking the bag. "It's PVC, wood, fiberglass, metal,
>>just a mess of different things. This process handles mixed waste beautifully."
>
>they're lying in as proof that they're not.
It's a hell of a lot more proof than you've given that they're lying.
>>
>>>>Besides, most of that shit starts out
>>>>as oil in the first place, so why would it be so freakin hard to get it
>>>>back out?
>>>
>>>In a word: Entropy.
>>
>>An inapplicable word, but a word none the less. What part of heating to
>>500/900°F donut you understand?
>>
>The parts where a toxic mix of PVC plastics, tin/lead solder,
>fiberglass, steal & aluminum separates into oil, hydrochloric acid,
>and stable, non-toxic waste.
>
PVC is nothing by hydrocarbon chains and chlorine. Tin, lead, steel, glass and
aluminum are stable compounds. If (a big if, I know) he can break down the
carbon chains, he will get oil, hydrochloric acid and stable minerals. He is
overstating the non-toxic part. Lead is toxic by itself. OTOH, I don't think
they use lead much in commercial solders anymore.
BTW, my point was that entropy is inapplicable when you add heat to a process.
Doug
Jon Russell
wrote:
>Anybody hear about this thermal depolymerization process?
>
>http://discover.com/current_issue/index.html
If I may come into this thread late after reading many of the posts?
Promising technology - not yet on line. I work for ConAgra and have
spoken about the Carthage plant. Due to be online this summer.
Obviously, it is something ConAgra's quite interested in as we deal in
a wide variety of potential feedstocks for TDP.
Will it do tires? Hard to say - seems doubtful - at least with steel
belted - but time will tell.
But I'm intrigued by all the basic uses in addition to the refinement
of waste heavy crudes and coal.
I look at it this way - if they deliver on 1/2 their promises at twice
the cost, there's some serious potential to this.
And since there are patents, working prototypes and a major plant
under construction in conjunction with a Fortune 500 firm, in addition
to backing by the Buffets, I'm thinking this would be well worth
investing in should the stock go public.
Is it "the answer"? WMD style no. But ........
Plus, the greens and liberals ought to love this company.......
Daniel Seriff
(in message <8hi0bvof00vq83898...@4ax.com>):
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 21:21:03 GMT, Daniel Seriff
> <my.crow's.to...@can.of.creamed.corn> wrote:
>
>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 01:57:27 -0400, lo...@victor.com (Lone Victor)
>>> Yes. In my estimation this is a scam.
>>
>> You're welcome to prove it with something more than not even remotely
>> substantiated one-line assertions.
>
> Please see my other posts in this tread for your "more than one-line
> assertions."
I don't think that saying "they're lying" six times constitutes "more than
one-line assertions".
>> I'll take published science over newsgroup bluster any day.
>
> Please quote or link to "published science" about this company's
> "depolymerization" method. A puff-piece in Discover magazine does not
> qualify. Something in the Journal of the American Chemical Society
> or other refereed journal would be fine.
Academic elitism is always so sad to see, in any field.
--
Daniel Seriff
Squid testicles!
Daniel Seriff
(in message <lnh0bvsp5kbvpq261...@4ax.com>):
> Doug Sorensen <doug.NOSP...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <vapuav0b9qrkos4bk...@4ax.com>, lo...@victor.com
>> says...
>>> No they haven't.
>>
>> "The technicians here have spent three years feeding different kinds of
>> waste
>> into their machinery to formulate recipes. In a little trailer next to the
>> plant, Appel picks up a handful of one-gallon plastic bags sent by a
>> potential
>> customer in Japan. The first is full of ground-up appliances, each piece no
>> larger than a pea. "Put a computer and a refrigerator into a grinder, and
>> that's
>> what you get," he says, shaking the bag. "It's PVC, wood, fiberglass,
>> metal,
>> just a mess of different things. This process handles mixed waste
>> beautifully."
>
> That's great. I tell you they're lying, and you quote the article
> they're lying in as proof that they're not.
Since you seem incapable of offering any proof that they're lying other than
various assertion that they're lying, your objections seem rather laughable.
Jon Fulbright
>
> An inapplicable word, but a word none the less. What part of heating to
> 500/900°F donut you understand?
There was a guy at GaTech back in the early '90s that was pushing an arc
element technique to get rid of toxic waste that heated it up to several
thousand K. Pretty much broke down every known molecule, but had to be
done in a rarified chamber. Probably not cost effective for your average
trash, but it was aiming at the toxic waste market.
There was supposed to be a demo facility at the Atlanta Olympics, but I
never heard any more about it (I believe I read about it in Scientific
America c. 1994). Anyone know more?
jf
Daniel Seriff
(in message <gsh0bv41lra0aha6u...@4ax.com>):
> Daniel Seriff <my.crow's.to...@can.of.creamed.corn> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 0:57:27 -0500, Lone Victor wrote
>> (in message <vapuav0b9qrkos4bk...@4ax.com>):
>>
>>>> Besides, most of that shit starts out
>>>> as oil in the first place, so why would it be so freakin hard to get it
>>>> back out?
>>>
>>> In a word: Entropy.
>>
>> Which equations are you using to prove that entropy would prevent it?
>
> This is chemistry, not physics. They're claiming to take a mixture of
> all sorts of messy waste materials, treat it with hot water for 15
> minutes, and get out pure, clean products. Bull Shit.
>
> Do you have any idea how hard it is to "grind up" used tires? The
> things are made of steal belts, nylon fabric, sometimes Kevlar (as in
> bullet-proof vests), rubber and carbon black. They don't "grind up".
> That's why they're such a disposal problem.
>
> And look at their reaction conditions: 500 F at 600 pounds pressure.
> Most plastics will *laugh* at such conditions. It's ludicrous to
> think you're going to dissolve tires or PVC pipes at such T&P.
So the answer is, apparently, a resounding "I don't know, and even if I did,
I wouldn't tell you".
--
Daniel Seriff
I never worry that all hell will break loose. My concern is that only part of
hell will break loose and be much harder to detect.
-Carlin
Jon Russell
>>And since there are patents, working prototypes and a major plant
>>under construction in conjunction with a Fortune 500 firm, in addition
>>to backing by the Buffets, I'm thinking this would be well worth
>>investing in should the stock go public.
>
>puff-piece in Discover. 1. They have patents 2. They have a big name
>investor 3. They have a contract with a big name company. Conclusion:
>you should give them money.
Certainly valid points...
>But let's look at each of these. 1. Patents. I've looked at them.
>They're not much of anything. Pretty much just a claim that they can
>put shit in a pressure cooker, and oil comes out.
Better than what came of cold fusion, etc....no? The fact that CAG is willing
to give this a go tells me a lot.
>2. Big Name Investor: One of Buffet's sons. I'm sorry, but if it
>ain't Warren Buffet I'm not impressed. Just look at what Steve Bowden
>did to his dad.
I know Appell btw. He's not entirely stupid. And yes, it isn't Warren - but it
ain't the schmo down the street either.
>3. Big Name Company: Fine, but it's for rendering turkey offal --
>*not* for creating oil from tires & trash.
Sure - you didn't see Waste Management there did you? So? Do you have any idea
how much ag waste there is? And what a problem it is? If this tech simple
takes care of that, I'd be thrilled to death. Think of all the dairy barns and
slaughter houses and grain elevators in this country - you're talking serious
feedstock. Not to mention another outright usage for corn that is much more
efficient than ethanol. And we haven't even gotten into basic landfill waste
such as paper, food waste, etc etc.
IOW - it doesn't have to do tires to be quite successful.
>4. Give Me Money: I'm convinced this is exactly what this is all
>about. The similarities with the SolvEx scandal are too great. If
>this pattern holds, the next step will be to claim that they can
>recover valuable metals like Gold and Platinum from the solid waste.
I'd be much more inclined to agree with you had the article run in
Fortune/Forbes/Business Week/Money etc. It did not. Or at least, I haven't
seen it listed there.
It may well be a colossal flop. Time will tell. We'll find out this summer.
The CheeseHusker
Jeffrey Davis
>
> IOW - it doesn't have to do tires to be quite successful.
If it does the "easy stuff" (offal,tar sands, paper) well, it'll be
like discovering tungsten filaments. If it's bogus, it's Buffet's
dough down the terlit and he's got more where it came from.
jbird
Lone Victor wrote:
> >
> >>>Oh, they can render down turkey ofal just fine. But all that BS about
> >>>PVC plastics, Tires, computers & refrigerators: Just BS.
> >
IAWTP. although not really a new idea. My brother (an engineer) has
worked on designing "garbage burner" power plants for years. They take
some types (not sure what) of municipal waste and turn burn it to
generate electricity.
I don't know enough about it to have an opinion but the concept is
similar and at least worth a look.
Jon Russell
wrote:
>My only objection is to the "miracle" claims that they can render down
>tires, computers, refrigerators, coal, tar sands, and oil shale just
>as easily, with no toxic byproducts. It just sets off alarm bells.
>Why make miracle claims at all when they have a perfectly good story
>about clearing up poultry waste?
Fair point - offal doesn't sell magazines tho.
I kinda look at it thru the lens of Popular Science/Mechanics - neat
story about possibilites that one needs to take with a grain of salt.
Interestingly, had this article run in a business magazine, one
wonders if the editor would have been more skeptical....
The CheeseHusker
Daniel Seriff
(in message <2ag2bvgfshlf0sovf...@4ax.com>):
> Daniel Seriff <my.crow's.to...@can.of.creamed.corn> wrote:
>
>>>> I'll take published science over newsgroup bluster any day.
> <snip>
>> Academic elitism is always so sad to see, in any field.
>
> I just wanted everyone to see these two lines of yours side-by-side.
Yes, you would, since you snipped your bashing of a reputable science
magazine. I don't know why you think you're fooling anyone with such a
transparent attempt at self-aggrandizement.
Daniel Seriff
(in message <klg2bvod6dc6uo79t...@4ax.com>):
> Daniel Seriff <my.crow's.to...@can.of.creamed.corn> wrote:
>
>>> And look at their reaction conditions: 500 F at 600 pounds pressure.
>>> Most plastics will *laugh* at such conditions. It's ludicrous to
>>> think you're going to dissolve tires or PVC pipes at such T&P.
>>
>> So the answer is, apparently, a resounding "I don't know, and even if I
>> did, I wouldn't tell you".
>
> Tell you what, Daniel: Why don't you go withdraw your entire life's
> savings, and invest the whole $1.98 in this company? After all,
> with the miracles this new process can produce, you'll be a
> thousandair within months.
I don't know why you think that the bigger a schmuck you act like, the
smarter people will think you are, but you should really try to change that
attitude.
Why don't you stop being such a pussy and post some math to support your
assertions, like I asked you to three posts ago?
--
Daniel Seriff
I feel like I just got mauled by Jesus!
Daniel Seriff
(in message <1344bvs3edcb1sfrb...@4ax.com>):
> Daniel Seriff <my.crow's.to...@can.of.creamed.corn> wrote:
>
>> I don't know why you think that the bigger a schmuck you act like, the
>> smarter people will think you are, but you should really try to change
>> that attitude.
>
> I'm responding to you in kind, schmuck. Re-read your own posts.
If you can't provide some math to substantiate your claims, you should
probably just admit it so we can both move on with our lives.